People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee

Vs.

Olive Rubio Mamaril, Accused-appellant

FACTS:

On 25 March 2003, at 9:30 oclock in the evening, SPO4 Alexis Gotidoc,

along with the members of Intel Operatives of Tarlac City Police Station and
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), implemented Search Warrant No. 144C
dated 18 March 2003 issued by Judge Alipio Yumul of Branch 66, Regional Trial
Court, Capas, Tarlac against the appellant in her residence at Zone 1, Barangay
Maliwalo, Tarlac City, Province of Tarlac.

Prior to the search, the police team invited Barangay Kagawad Oscar Tabamo
of Barangay Maliwalo to witness the conduct of the search and seizure operation
in the appellants house. With Barangay Kagawad Tabamo, the police team
presented the search warrant to appellant and informed her of the purpose of
the search and her constitutional rights.

Afterwards, SPO4 Gotidoc, the designated searcher, started searching the

appellants house, in the presence of the appellant and Kagawad Tabamo. During
his search, he found on the top cover of the refrigerator one (1) plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. Thereafter he prepared a Certificate of
Good Search and Confiscation Receipt which the appellant refused to sign.

The plastic sachet was brought to the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory
located at Tarlac Provincial Hospital for qualitative examination. The
examination conducted by Engr. Marcene G. Agala, the Forensic Chemist who tested
the white crystalline substance, yielded positive results for 0.055 gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

Appellant claims that the police officers framed her up and planted the
shabu inside her house because of her refusal to give them money.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant is innocent of violating Section 11,

Article II, of RA 9165.

RULING:

No. The Court of Appeals ruled that the evidence for the prosecution fully
proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements necessary to successfully prosecute
a case for illegal possession of a regulated drug, namely, (a) the accused is
in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a
regulated drug, (b) such possession is not authorized by law and (c) the accused
freely and consciously possessed said drug.

The original position of the accused which, in this petition, begins with
the contention of non-compliance with all the requisites of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs. We agree with the rulings of the trial court and the Court
of Appeals that there was indeed full satisfaction of the requisites for the
conviction of the accused.

In the case at hand, the so-called frame-up was virtually pure allegation
bereft of credible proof. The narration of the police officer who implemented
the search warrant, was found after trial and appellate review as the true
story. It is on firmer ground than the self-serving statement of the accused-
appellant of frame-up. The defense cannot solely rely upon the constitutional
presumption of innocence for, while it is constitutional, the presumption is
not conclusive. Notably, the accused-appellant herself stated in her brief
that no proof was proffered by the accused-appellant of the police officers
alleged ill motive.
[G.R. No. 144157. June 10, 2003]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LOWELL SALUDES y DE GUZMAN @ NONOY

KALOG and NELSON SUMALINOG (at large), accused.

Facts:

That on or about 25 July 1995, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and

within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating together and helping one another, without being
authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sold to a NARCOM Agent
acting as a poseur-buyer 1,940.8 grams of Marijuana dried leaves with stalks
placed in a white backpack and a gray traveling bag which was sold in the total
amount of Ten Thousand (10,000.00) Pesos, which is a prohibited drug.

The trial court found the accused guilty of violation of Section 4,

Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty for the crime charged

Ruling:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425.

Appellants claim of frame-up must also fail. For the officers to frame
him up, they must have known him prior to the incident. However, not a single
shred of evidence was shown to bolster this claim. Rather, what was established
was that Officer Impuerto became aware of appellant and his illegal trade only
at 10:00 a.m. of July 25, 1995, when he learned of the tip from the CI. The
informant even had to introduce Officer Impuerto to appellant and his companion
before the officer began to negotiate a deal with him. Appellant himself
admitted that he did not know the officers prior to this incident. There was,
therefore, no motive for the officers to frame him up. Without proof of motive
to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his claim of having
been framed.

Moreover, appellants denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies

of the prosecution witnesses.
G.R. No. 170837 September 12, 2006

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.

DEXTER TORRES y DELA CRUZ, appellant

Facts:

That on or about August 13, 2001, in the Municipality of Gonzaga, province

of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his possession and under his control and custody one (1) brick of Marijuana
fruiting tops weighing 831.91 grams wrapped in a newspaper which gave POSITIVE
results for the tests of marijuana, a prohibited drug, the said accused knowing
fully well and aware that it is prohibited for any person to, unless authorized
by law, to possess or use any prohibited drug.

Dexter Torres was charged with violation of Section 8, Article II of

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425.

On November 14, 2003, the RTC rendered a joint decision convicting Dexter
of the offenses charged.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty for the crime charge

Ruling:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for violation of
Section 8, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425.

In the instant case, appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut

the existence of animus possidendi over the illicit drugs and paraphernalia
found in his residence. His claim that he was not aware that such illegal items
were in his house is insufficient. We have time and again ruled that mere denial
cannot prevail over the positive testimony of a witness. Mere denial, just like
alibi, is a self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters. As between a categorical testimony that rings of truth on
one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to
prevail.
 Moreover, his defense of frame-up, as we said, is a common and standard
line of defense which is invariably viewed with disfavor, it being capable of
easy concoction and difficult to prove.

G.R. No. 187069 : October 20, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO MAGPAYO, Defendant

and Appellant.

Facts:

"That on or about 10:00 ooclock in the evening of the 18st day of January
2003, at Barangay 5, Poblacion, Municipality of Alabat, Province of Quezon,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to a police officer who
acted as poseur buyer five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, each
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, with a total weight of 0.24 gram, and
for which said accused received as payment four (4) marked P100 bills.

The trial court found that the prosecutions evidence had proven
appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt and convicted him. The decision of
the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty for the crime charged

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Thus the accused-appellant

Antonio Magpayo is hereby ACQUITTED.

In this case, the prosecution failed to clearly demonstrate how the seized
items were handled from the time they were taken from appellant to the moment
they were presented as evidence in court. Although PO3 Angulo testified that
PO1 Gaya, the poseur-buyer, surrendered the same to their chief of police at
the police station and that he (PO3 Angulo) marked the same, as well as the
other plastic sachets of shabu which their search on appellant yielded, it was
not clear, however, when the markings were made: whether it was done before or
after PO1 Gaya turned over the sold shabu to their chief of police.

Moreover, there was a break in the chain of custody of the seized

substances. The failure of the prosecution to establish the evidences chain of
custody is fatal to its case.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES - versus - DELIA BAYANI y BOTANES,

GR 179150 June 17, 2008

Facts:

That on or about the 3rd day of March 2003, in the Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and
there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute
or act as broker in the said transaction, six point forty one (6.41) grams of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

In a Decision dated 16 July 2004, the RTC decreed that the accused was
guilty without reasonable doubt since the fact of the illegal sale of a dangerous
drug, methylamphetamine hydrochloride, was sufficiently and indisputably
established by the prosecution.

The Court of Appeals DISMISSED the appeal and the assailed Decision
AFFIRMED in toto.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty for the crime charged

Ruling:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused.

As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of

entrapment, is a valid means of arresting violators of Republic Act No. 9165.
It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing
a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from
the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.

In this case, there was no allegation of any attempt at extortion on the

part of police officers or any reason for the police officers to falsify a
serious criminal charge against appellant. Appellant admitted that she had never
even seen any of the police officers until she was arrested.